See above statement. Taking into account production expertise (Ricoh holds patents and proprietary processes in this area. Custom colors can becmoe a manufacturing hallmark), combine "Any FF camera we release will be different" with "We are committed to Pentax for dSLR's and professional cameras but Ricoh will get new technologies" and what do you imagine?

Chuckle! Beats me!

Here are a couple of "facts":

1. If Ricoh/Pentax don't bring out an FF, lots of Pentax users will have apoplexy.

2. If Ricoh/Pentax bring out an FF, whatever its specification, lots of Pentax users will have apoplexy.

Ricoh/Pentax know that there is no perfect solution. They are going to upset a lot of people. I hope they are taking a long(ish) view, and not focusing just on next year's sales figures.

I don't know what to expect from a full frame sensor pentax. I found the 645 to be rather costly. However the way camera makers are going it is most likely that we wont' see any quality for a very long time.

Ricoh will not launch a system without being commited - this means lenses and accessories made for it. Your camera which would be useless without the adapter and legacy lenses doesn't make sense.

There is a difference between being committed to it and having a range of lenses and accessories for it on day one. That is the advantage of what I suggested - demonstrating commitment without needing all (or even any) of those things on day one.

As I have repeatedly said, the adapter must be there from the start, perhaps even built in. That means that, by default, the camera is a K-mount camera, hence anything but useless!

But it has potential to handle lenses that haven't been released at the start; or perhaps one or two are released initially with others to follow.

...Eventually (25 year termns) K-mount will atrophy anyway. Some new technology will make it redundant.
The flagship dSLR and professional cameras will be badged Pentax. That statement was made as recently as July 12th. Compacts and new technologies will be badged Ricoh - also stated July 12th.

See above statement. Taking into account production expertise (Ricoh holds patents and proprietary processes in this area. Custom colors can becmoe a manufacturing hallmark), combine "Any FF camera we release will be different" with "We are committed to Pentax for dSLR's and professional cameras but Ricoh will get new technologies" and what do you imagine?

By these two wordings, you have stressed all RICOH's last statement ambiguity.
Simultaneously, PENTAX is dopped as a company name.

=> Hence so many questions and fears for the probably "not-so-far-away future".

In such an unfortunate communication context, here is what happens : the longest silence and lack of K-system novelty's announcement, the worst drop-in for short-term K-mount devices sales.

There is a difference between being committed to it and having a range of lenses and accessories for it on day one. That is the advantage of what I suggested - demonstrating commitment without needing all (or even any) of those things on day one.

As I have repeatedly said, the adapter must be there from the start, perhaps even built in. That means that, by default, the camera is a K-mount camera, hence anything but useless!

But it has potential to handle lenses that haven't been released at the start; or perhaps one or two are released initially with others to follow.

Being committed means having some lenses (at least one) available from day one, followed by a consistent series of new lenses.
Being committed does not means launching a mount with no lenses for it.

The camera would be useless because there would be zero lenses for it; for K-mount lenses there are K-mount cameras. What do you mean, built-in adapter?

Why would one buy K-mount lenses if he doesn't want to become a K-mount user? If all he wants is a MILC, not a SLR, not to deal with legacy stuff?
It makes sense for migrating users, and cheap flea market lenses; but not to support a new system.

Really, it's so complicated it can't possibly work. Launching a system with one expensive, niche camera targetted for a smaller market, no lenses, using legacy ones hoping the users wouldn't mind... does it even have a purpose?

At a certain point it makes more sense to start from scratch. And to do that you have to assess your market and customer base. Just messing around with technical possibilities us just that.........messing around.

By these two wordings, you have stressed all RICOH's last statement ambiguity.
Simultaneously, PENTAX is dopped as a company name.

=> Hence so many questions and fears for the probably "not-so-far-away future".

In such an unfortunate communication context, here is what happens : the longest silence and lack of K-system novelty's announcement, the worst drop-in for short-term K-mount devices sales.

Bad strategy, indeed...

Referring to my estmated (very broad) time horizon, by the time K-mount is dropped I will be dead and all my mechanical K-mount cameras will be too, because so will Eric be.

We can't see that far into the future what will happen to the Pentax brand. We can certainly listen to the statements of the President of Ricoh Imaging and accept his word when he says Pentax will be the label on dSLR's. He is speaking of the knowable time horizon - 5 to 7 years.

I'm not arguing with anyone here - I initially wrote these are interesting discussions. Yet I often remind us that the camera itself is actually fairly small potatoes in the complex product decision process. If the camera is the visible part of the iceberg, the pyramid of invisible component suppliers, manufacturing considerations, competing patents, capital availability and a host of other unseen inputs are the body that defines it.

Being committed means having some lenses (at least one) available from day one, followed by a consistent series of new lenses.
Being committed does not means launching a mount with no lenses for it.

What do you mean, built-in adapter?

Why would one buy K-mount lenses if he doesn't want to become a K-mount user? If all he wants is a MILC, not a SLR, not to deal with legacy stuff?
It makes sense for migrating users, and cheap flea market lenses; but not to support a new system.

Really, it's so complicated it can't possibly work. Launching a system with one expensive, niche camera targetted for a smaller market, no lenses, using legacy ones hoping the users wouldn't mind... does it even have a purpose?

I'll spell it out! It is actually very simple.

The camera has a mount similar to a K-mount but with a smaller registration distance. From day one there is an adapter that when added to that mount turns it into a full K-mount. That adapter may even be built into the camera, so that in position "1" it is bit like a K-mount but with a short registration distance, while in position "2" it is a full K-mount.

So: depending on whether the camera has been designed with a separate or a built-in adapter (a choice to be made by Ricoh/Pentax): A no separate adapter = position "1" of a built-in adapter, both giving a short registrationB separate adapter = position "2" of a built-in adapter, both giving a current K-mount registration

In case B, the camera handles every lens that a K-5IIs can handle, and in exactly the same way.

In case A, lenses that benefit from being designed with a short registration distance can be used.

I emphasise; at launch, that camera will support every lens that (say) a K-5IIs supports, in the same way.

But there is for evermore the option for Ricoh/Pentax (and others) to supply extra lenses that can benefit from that smaller registration distance. No-one is compelled to buy them because the camera will support all other lenses. It is an extra option available to be exploited when there are advantages for users and/or Ricoh/Pentax.

At a certain point it makes more sense to start from scratch. And to do that you have to assess your market and customer base. Just messing around with technical possibilities us just that.........messing around.

I don't believe it is actually a lot of work, and it would be more than "a few mm's".

Really, it's so complicated it can't possibly work. Launching a system with one expensive, niche camera targetted for a smaller market, no lenses, using legacy ones hoping the users wouldn't mind... does it even have a purpose?

Originally posted by Aristophanes

A lot if work only to shave a few mm's off the depth of the camera.

At a certain point it makes more sense to start from scratch. And to do that you have to assess your market and customer base. Just messing around with technical possibilities us just that.........messing around.

+1, and image quality couldn't definitely improve, more likely only get worst.

How many K-mount users would actually be interested by such a bricolage ?
How many new-comers would prefer "K-MILC-adapted" to Fuji's X-Trans sensor with it's fine optics producing unequalled APS-C image quality, compared to this physical imbroglio ?

I think they'd be better off licensing the K-mount specifications to Fuji and letting Fuji make the adapter. They'd sell lenses, they'd get license fees from Fuji from buyers who are legacy lens owners and their return on invested capital would be astrnomical.

I think they'd be better off licensing the K-mount specifications to Fuji and letting Fuji make the adapter. They'd sell lenses, they'd get license fees from Fuji from buyers who are legacy lens owners and their return on invested capital would be astrnomical.

Why in the world would they want to do that?

Fuji's register distance as it is allows them to use everything out there, particularly targeting Leica M compatible lenses. Plus Zeiss is natively supporting them WITH AF. Fuji needs no such complication because they use their X mount and right out of the box it had great native lenses, fast wide-angles, fast 35, aftermarket lens and accessory support, smart adapters, etc. Fuji didn't turn over some 100 million dollars in 2011 by making Pentax-like decisions.

And why would Pentax? Ricoh is trying to simplify and streamline the manufacturing process at Pentax; maximise economies of scale where possible; and introduce new, simpler throughput techniques that open up applications of the three existing mounts. Why would Ricoh want to introduce complexity into its systems?